warped space Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 Ok so say you are a mass moving fate than the speed of light (ignore the fact that your mass would become greater than infinity) and you are moving away from the earth and the moon and you are watching the two spin backwards would you really be able to see the two spin or would you block your own light in the past relative to the light
elfmotat Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 Massive objects can't travel at the speed of light. You can't use physics to explain scenarios which violate physics.
Klaynos Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 If you're going to ignore the bounds of the physical universe you can draw any conclusion you like. 1
ACG52 Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 You're asking 'if the universe didn't work the way it works, how would the universe work.'
SciFiReal Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 If we want to travel FTL we must think of ways how to surround the special relativity theory. My bets guess is warp drive. I hope my children will see it happening.
warped space Posted March 1, 2013 Author Posted March 1, 2013 I know I asked a question that defys normal physics but the reason I asked if you would see the two spin is because now say you are moving twords it if there is somthing behind you it is blocked by your shadow now if your moving away from it FTL wouldnt you be your own shadow? Well any physics for that matter
swansont Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 There is no physics to describe what happens when you violate physical law. You no longer have a self-consistent model, nor do you have a way to compare the model you do have to nature to see if it's right. Double whammy.
Chrispen Evan Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 which is more correct, to say massive objects can't travel at the speed of light or that massive objects can't be accelerated to the speed of light? i realise there is a problem with the latter but just would like a clarification. thanks
Spart Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 which is more correct, to say massive objects can't travel at the speed of light or that massive objects can't be accelerated to the speed of light? i realise there is a problem with the latter but just would like a clarification. thanks I'd say that objects can accelerate towards the speed of light without ever reaching it.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now